Crosswhite

Crosswhite, James. The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument.

(1996)

• reminder that the rhetorical tradition has always viewed argumentation as a dialogue, a response to changing situations, an exchange of persuading, listening, and understanding.
• argues powerfully that the core of a college education should be learning to write a reasoned argument.Collapse of traditional models of argumentative reasoning; call for new account of reason.
• claiming, questioning, and giving reasons are not simple elements of formal logic, but communicative acts with complicated ethical features.
• Book is an affirmation of reason by way of reconstruction of the theory of argumentation.” Articulates a new defense of teaching of written reasoning in higher education. And it defends argumentative rationality against its postmodern detractors. But starts by accepting postmodern criticisms of the philosophical tradition. Thus the reconstruction of reason draws not from logic but from rhetorical theory, and is thoroughly pragmatic.
• Justifies rhetoric of reason by the degree to which it accomplishes worthy social aims.
• Reinterprets logic itself as a social-ethical ideal and metaphysics as a particular social-historical strategy to defend reasoning.
• Not a handbook of techniques or schemes—a sustained essay towards reconstructing the concept of argumentation and showing it as worthwhile.
• For teachers of writing, but no curricula.
• Teach on your feet—different ways for different teachers—purpose—no busywork
• Teaching of writing is teaching of reasoning—not to be delegated to the remedial
• “to help students learn to write is a Socratic endeavor in the best and deepest sense” not to transmit info but to engage and guide in discovery. To draw out of students their best ideas.
• “Uncompromising stand against the remedialization of rhetoric and of students” which is caused by severing writing from its purposes.
• Writing well requires practice, but it also requires purpose.
• Traditional rhetoric understood the goal of rhetorical training-- human potential. This book is committed to that goal”
• Grammar and style will improve as well this way—in context—better than with isolated focus, but not the main thing. They can see WHY the grammar and punctuation.
• Low expectations are damaging. Teach students how to keep teaching themselves.
• Obstacles against his stance are 1. Public misunderstanding of the purpose of writing courses (shared by profs, admin, journalists, etc some). Imagine a “basic skill” that can be taught to school children once and for all. 2. Adjunct, underpaid, overworked faculty.
• Skepticism about argumentative reasoning is fairly widespread among compo teachers—a post modern critique of the concept reasoning. Aversion.
• Not does the rhetoric of reason deal with argumentation as it actually is or does it deal with some nonexistent ideal, but what does this angle on argumentation make possible for us?
• Part I. “the End of Philosophy and Resurgence of Rhetoric” describes the philosophical situation from which a rhetoric of reason arises
• Part II. “Reconstructing Argumentation” Presents main features of the new theory by offering extended accounts of claiming, questioning, and conflict.
• Part III. “Evaluating Arguments” addresses the problems of evaluating specific arguments as well as evaluating the general practice of argumentation. Recommends traditional rhet and theory.
• Part IV. “Argument, Inquiry, and Education” places the reconstructed theory in its historical context; shows the relation of argumentation to inquiry and research in general, and develops implications of theory for the object of higher education, especially in teaching of writing.
• Moves closer to essay and away from specialized discourse but still interdisciplinary.
• “Rhetoric is different from any other field because rhetoric is concerned with the way discourse authority operates wherever it is found. “ Other fields use rhetoric; rhetoric studies itself.
• Break with Descartes’ need to leave subjectivity. The certain and the probable.
• Academic writings vs. discourse community.
• Argument as dialogue—Plato. “ I propose that any argument is (internally) a communicative process, a process of question and answer, challenge and reply, affirmation and negation.
• Claimant and reason—who cares and so what?
• There should be purpose to argument, purpose to conflict as well—argument can prevent conflict, expands on Booth here. And Rogerian?
• Conceptualize written argument as conflict. Teachers must be very careful and kind interlocutors in student argument.
• Rhetorical fallacy not logical fallacy says Crosswhite. Says we are still Ramist! In our overuse of logic rather than rhetoric.
• Dismisses logical fallacies as troublesome and not always fallacious.
• Returning dialog to idea to argument—Socratic!
• Argument as a means to agree—as inquiry.
• Cites Socratic joining of philosophy to rhetoric—not an art.
• We must not only understand that rhetoric is a power but understand what that power is for.
• We must have a sense of wonder for learning to happen.
• We must teach even the poor writers using writing with purpose.